Open letter to the Lord Chancellor

The following is a letter I have sent to our new Lord Chancellor today asking that she takes seriously the problems in the justice system. I do not expect a reply but I shall post one if it comes.

Dear Ms Truss,

Re: Criminal
Justice System

Congratulations on your recent appointment as Lord
Chancellor and Minister for Justice – I saw the photographs of you at the Royal
Courts of Justice this morning and it inspired me to write to you about the
appalling state of our Criminal Justice System, although I have very serious
doubts whether this letter will ever find its way to you or whether it will be
taken seriously if it does.

I am a solicitor, I work for myself representing people
accused of motoring offences – particularly offences involving alcohol or drugs and vehicles, these are unglamorous offences such as drink driving. I have
previously run a general criminal law firm that handled offences from people
travelling on the railway without a ticket up to offences involving corrupt
police officers, serious sexual offences and murder. We also did a little
employment law and ran free advice days for local members of the public to come
and get some free advice about their legal problems.

Since I qualified the CJS has become a gradually less
fair place to be for those accused of crime – many of whom are innocent. This
problem was exacerbated by the introduction of Criminal Justice Simple, Speed,
Summary (CJSSS) that seems to have persuaded many in the CJS that doing things
quickly is far more important than achieving justice. While justice should be
swift it should also be just!

There are a lot of problems in the system such as constant
cutting of legal aid rates (I gave up my legal aid contract in 2011/2 because
the rates were too low then for a living to be made – I have no idea how
anybody is still in business) and underfunding of the system leading to court
buildings that are freezing in winter and boiling in summer. In many courts
there are no facilities for advocates to work while waiting for their case to
be called and nowhere for us to speak privately to our clients. I’ve even seen
police officers drafted from the streets to assist the gaolers in City of
London Magistrates Courts because they didn’t have enough staff to take
prisoners to court!

In my opinion, the main thing causing unfairness in the
system at the moment are the poor decisions being made by court staff,
including judges and magistrates. I suspect that the cause of this is related
to poor legal training, a lack of staff and general overwork within the courts.
In other words, underfunding across the system. I’d like to take a moment to
highlight four examples.

First two cases involving people who failed to provide a
specimen of breath, neither of whom I represented at the time of their
sentencing. One man failed to provide a specimen of breath at the roadside and
was disqualified from driving for 18 months. So what you may think – he should
have provided the sample. The so what is
that the sentence for this offence is 4 penalty points, not an 18 month ban! In
his case, he did provide at the police station and was found to have no alcohol
in his system. The second man was disqualified for 18 months for failing to
provide a breath sample at the police station after he had been found in charge
of his vehicle. In this case, the maximum ban that should normally be imposed
in the most extreme cases according to the sentencing guidelines is 12 months.
This means that in two separate cases that happened at different times in
different courts there were two court employed legal advisors, two prosecutors,
two defence lawyers and two judges (or six magistrates) who did not recognise
that excessive sentences were being imposed.

In the third case, I represented a lady accused of drink
driving. She insisted she was not guilty and, on the day of her trial, the
Crown accepted that they could not secure a conviction against her and
discontinued their case. I applied for a Defendant’s Costs Order on her behalf,
which was refused. The District Judge gave his reasons that she might have been
guilty anyway and he had a duty to protect public money. This is a decision
made in complete defiance of the established law. But, the judge knows he can
get away with it because very few privately paying defendants can afford to
take their cases further than is absolutely necessary to get justice for
themselves. I have no doubt that had this lady judicially reviewed this
decision she would have won but she simply cannot afford to do so – this also
highlights a problem with access to justice that faces millions of ordinary,
hardworking people in this country.

The fourth case is one in which I acted but did not
appear for the trial. The long and short is that the defendant was convicted.
The barrister who represented him was outraged claiming that the magistrates
had ignored huge problems with the prosecution evidence to reach their verdict –
this is unimportant what is important is that we immediately lodged an appeal
against conviction. However, the court refused to process the appeal because
the defendant has not been sentenced yet. I asked the court to reconsider and
pointed to the Criminal Procedure Rules. I received a response telling me that
the rules say my notice of appeal must state the sentence and since I cannot do
that until after the sentence is imposed the court cannot process the appeal.
This is completely wrong and it is clear from the provisions quoted that the
person who made this decision lacks the legal knowledge to understand the rules
they are citing. FYI the rules are very clear that sentence needs only be
stated when you are appealing sentence, which we are not doing. The court is
clearly in breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules but, once again, there is
nothing the defendant can do about it because he lacks the funds to judicially
review the court’s decision. This is a problem with access to justice.

The four cases I mention are examples of problems I have
personal experience of over the past few months. If the problems in the CJS are
an iceberg then these four cases are merely the first inkling of trouble seen
by the lookouts on the Titanic!

My impression of the CJS is that far too many people in
it prioritise meeting KPIs, such as dealing with cases quickly, over achieving
justice. This leads to injustice. I read you are a qualified accountant so let
me put it into terms you will understand. The approach of many in the courts is
akin to an accountant prioritising completing a company’s accounts over getting
the accounts correct!

The response of many people, including magistrates and
judges, to criticism is simply to say, “well if something goes wrong you can
always appeal”. But this is not good enough for three reasons. First, courts
should be aiming to get it right first time, every time. Secondly, the appeal
courts are not there to provide a routine second chance, they should be used
only in rare circumstances. Finally, many people will not qualify for legal
aid, but they fall into a gap where paying privately is difficult if not
impossible. Many of my clients find funding their defence difficult and the
idea of appealing a conviction or judicially reviewing a decision is beyond
their financial capability. Thus there is a deficit in peoples’ ability to
access justice.

For those paying privately a big problem with them
accessing justice is that they know that if they are acquitted they will not
get their legal fees back. Thus they pay a significant amount of money to prove
to the court and the world that they are not a criminal. This is a direct
consequence of a government decision to limit the amount innocent people can
get back to legal aid rates – legal aid rates are so low that the famous Cab
Rank Rule, which requires barristers to take any case offered to them, does not
apply to any work funded by legal aid! The result of capping the costs innocent
people can reclaim means that many defendants will look at the cost of
defending themselves versus the cost of being convicted and will enter a plea
on a commercial basis of what will cost less rather than on whether they are
actually guilty of the offence they are accused of committing. I have seen many
defendants plead guilty on this basis! So much for the celebrated maxim that it
is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.

This is just criminal law; I gather things are even worse
in other areas of law. In particular, I read regularly that parents fighting
for access to their children in the family courts are turning to fee-charging
McKenzie Friends. These are people with no legal qualifications, no legal
experience and no insurance should they make a mistake. Parents are using these
people because they feel they have no other way of accessing justice because
legal aid has been withdrawn from them. Now you may think, “why don’t
solicitors just charge less?” The answer to that is that solicitors have tremendous
overheads. I am required to carry £3M of insurance for every case I take –
other solicitors will have higher insurance requirements depending on the work
they do. Solicitors also have huge upfront training costs to qualify, large
fees to regulators each year and ongoing professional training each year. Thus,
it costs more to be a solicitor than it does to be a McKenzie Friend because of
all the features that exist to protect consumers from us making mistakes!

I’ve now outlined a few of the problems that face the justice
system. Many of the problems in the courts cause injustice and prevent people
accessing the justice system altogether. These are not abstract concepts. For
many of my clients a bad decision means the loss of their job and home. In the
family courts an inability to access the courts and proper legal advice can
leave children and parents unable to see each other for years on end. It means
employees who are mistreated by their employers are unable to get justice – I see
in the news just this morning that it has taken a Parliamentary enquiry to uncover
the mistreatment of employees at Sports Direct. Failing to ensure ordinary
people can get access to justice means that their lives are blighted for years
to come, maybe even for ever.

You swore yesterday to uphold the rule of law. When
people cannot access justice the rule of law is meaningless. I am asking that
you take seriously the many concerns of the professions that you will hear
during your time as Lord Chancellor. I ask that you look seriously at what is
happening in our justice system and so something to stop the rot, which is
already well set in. I ask that you stand up to the Treasury when they
inevitably come looking for yet more funding cuts – no doubt to pay the £5k a
day I read the new Ministry for Brexit will be paying to their lawyers.

You’ll have many advisers who will no doubt tell you that
everything is great and more cuts can be made safely. They don’t know what they
are talking about! Please listen to the professions – don’t be a Chris “Failing”
Grayling who asks for the professions views, receives 14,000 responses telling
him his plan is a bad one and who ignores all those voices and does it anyway.

I hope that you’ll be a good Lord Chancellor who acts to
protect the rule of law and ensure that the ordinary man and woman on the
street can seek the protection of the law. But, the truth is that I have long
ago lost any faith in the politicians who inhabit Westminster. Years of mismanagement of the legal system
tells me not to expect much in the next few years.

Comments

I doubt any govt minister would read a letter that long and none would be receptive to advice along the lines of "you need to spend more money" since they know that HM Treasury will never give them more money.

So we're back in the Victorian situation that only the rich get justice. And ironically, those who can see the multi-thousand pound bills pile up and not lose their nerve will end up having their costs met.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a
roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the
question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge
or take no further action (NFA)?” What are the
options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available
to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to
attend court. Charging means that you
are given police bail and are required to attend court in person. A summons is an order from the court for you
to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf. In many cases where a person is summonsed,
the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution. These can be a simple caution, which on the
face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional
caution. Conditions could include a
requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc. Either…

Big news in the UK today is the case of Laura Plummer, a 33
year old British woman who managed to “accidentally” plead guilty to importing
Tramadol painkiller tablets into Egypt in a bizarre misunderstanding on
Christmas Day. She has now been sentenced to three years imprisonment by the
court. In Egypt it seems that the possession and importation of
Tramadol is banned without a special prescription because it is widely abused
in that country. Ms Plummer has said that she did not know the medication was
illegal in Egypt and had taken it into the country for her Egyptian boyfriend,
Omar Caboo, who is also 33 years old. According to the news reports I’ve read
of Ms Plummer’s account and those given by her family to explain her actions, Ms
Plummer obtained the drugs from a friend here in the UK. It is unclear whether
that friend was in possession of a prescription nor, if they were, how it came
to be that they built up such an extensive stockpile if they genuinely required
the medication –…

I am a solicitor-advocate who specialises in motoring law with a particular interest in representing clients who have been charged with criminal driving offences involving alcohol, such as drink driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath.